« One Stage in Becoming a Future Preacher | Main | Framing Genocide »

April 28, 2009

Comments

Bob-B

Good news for the Iraqis. Bad news for all the pseudo-leftists who would love to see Iraqi democracy drowned in blood.

Spencer

Bob-B: It's true that many (myself included) experienced what I'd call "cognitive resonance" when the Iraq situation went from bad to worse and stayed there, and a certain amount of "cognitive dissonance" when the surge (Petraeus' leadership, focused strategy, better tactics, overall timing) saw the situation stabilizing and improving. This is not the same thing as rooting for our failure in Iraq. I'm sure the reverse was true for those with the perspective that Iraq was not a mistake, but crucial to our foreign policy. Both sides work from strongly-held beliefs about what's best for US interests. When things go according to your expectations, you confidently buttress your arguments with those events and point them out in the debate. When things go against expectations, you come up with alternate theories and arguments to support your thesis until you have to abandon it. No "pseudo-leftist" I've _ever_ met (and I went to Berkeley) has desired anything other than improvements in the political and economic lives of Iraqis. In an ironic twist, they just have the far more conservative belief that invading other countries and imposing democracy is difficult at best, and often disastrous at worst.

DaninVan

Perhaps I'm simply having a memory lapse here, Spencer, but wasn't it the left-of-ctr. segment of US (and Canadian) society that advocated 'intervening' in Serbia/Kosovo/Croatia?

Dom

" ...I've _ever_ met (and I went to Berkeley) has desired anything other than improvements in the political and economic lives of Iraqis."

Someone in The Guardian (perhaps Arundhati Roy) admitted that she wanted the coalition to fail in Iraq. That desire was not prompted by a concern of Iraqi's welfare.

The comments to this entry are closed.