The Dartmouth Observer |
|
|
Commentary on politics, history, culture, and literature by two Dartmouth graduates and their buddies
WHO WE ARE Chien Wen Kung graduated from Dartmouth College in 2004 and majored in History and English. He is currently a civil servant in Singapore. Someday, he hopes to pursue a PhD in History. John Stevenson graduated from Dartmouth College in 2005 with a BA in Government and War and Peace Studies. He is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He hopes to pursue a career in teaching and research. Kwame A. Holmes did not graduate from Dartmouth. However, after graduating from Florida A+M University in 2003, he began a doctorate in history at the University of Illinois--Urbana Champaign. Having moved to Chicago to write a dissertation on Black-Gay-Urban life in Washington D.C., he attached himself to the leg of John Stevenson and is thrilled to sporadically blog on the Dartmouth Observer. Feel free to email him comments, criticisms, spelling/grammar suggestions. BLOGS/WEBSITES WE READ The American Scene Arts & Letters Daily Agenda Gap Stephen Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker and Posner Belgravia Dispatch Black Prof The Corner Demosthenes Daniel Drezner Five Rupees Free Dartmouth Galley Slaves Instapundit Mickey Kaus The Little Green Blog Left2Right Joe Malchow Josh Marshall OxBlog Bradford Plumer Political Theory Daily Info Andrew Samwick Right Reason Andrew Seal Andrew Sullivan Supreme Court Blog Tapped Tech Central Station UChicago Law Faculty Blog Volokh Conspiracy Washington Monthly Winds of Change Matthew Yglesias ARCHIVES BOOKS WE'RE READING CW's Books John's Books STUFF Site Feed    |
Saturday, April 05, 2003
Repeat after me: hope is not a foreign policy Chien Wen nicely shows that a country violating human rights is not a sufficient reason to go to war. He also says: "At present, we can but speculate. Yet I don't share the pessimism of those who distrust the administration's desire to rebuild Iraq into a thriving, functional democracy. I actually believe Bush and Blair on this point. But again, we shall see - and hope." Hope is not a foreign policy! (esp. when it is not a war that is absolutely necessary to undertake.) We should have based the war on speculation. Even if the neocons gamble pays off (and I don't think it will), the fact that Chien Wen is saying that all we can do is speculate is a HUGE problem, because it shows the dangers of having gotten into this war. As for this crap about spreading democracy accross the middle east: are that stupid? How will that happen, exactly? Esp. with a large U.S. occupying force? And a lot of the populations of countries (say Jordan), actually would want a more anti-U.S. stance. You think regime change will necessarily or even likely favor the U.S.? And do you think the U.S., Bush and the neocons will stand by and let anti-U.S. regimes develop without conflict? If you think they will put democracy (As oppossed to some vague largely bullshit word in this context like 'freedom') ahead of every other goal in U.S. foreign policy... do tell me, please: I need a good laugh. And as for the admin's good faith at rebuilding: look at afghanistan. (hell, look at home: Bush is not even coming through with the money he promised New York City). Anyway, alienating almost the entire world, getting arab populations pissed off at us, breeding resentment and hatred, and more to the point, the problems associated with maintaining a military occupation, are unlikely to lead to Iraq being this great model of democracy. The neocons are playing a risky game where they assume everything will break their way. They haven't so far. Read Marshall's article which I linked to above and tell me how invading countries in the middle east is going to lead both to a democratic middle east and a middle east that isn't even more hostile to America. |