I almost vomited when I read this essay about "liberal hawks" and the fact that the term is shallow because it was applied by Ezra Klein to people based upon their position on the war and not "their underlying philosophy"....
There the young Mr Klein, who supported the Iraq war when he was even younger and should have been doing something more useful, like smoking a lot of grass, points out that the "liberal hawks" who pompously and thoroughly botched the whole "should we invade Iraq" question, are refusing to account for their screwup in any serious way -- but are instead huffing and puffing on the question of Iran. "Just because we were wrong in the past doesn't mean we are ontologically wrong," they intone: they are washed in the blood and spittle of Marty Peretz or some shit like that, and their sins washed clean.
Whatever. Observe how this "Militant Moderates" punk prefers to engage with the utterly meaningless question of "what is a liberal hawk" rather than talk about, well, anything that has happened or might actually occur in the real world.
The first question, of course, is what is a "liberal hawk" anyway? Klein's
definition suffers from a pejorative tautology. "Liberal hawks" to him are
defined solely by their stances on the issues of Iraq and Iran -- favor towards
the Iraq war then, embarrassment and avoidance of the Iraq issue now, and a
vaguely noncommittal stance towards Iran. Klein's depiction of "liberal
hawks" is thus not a description of a political philosophy or a foreign policy approach at all, but rather just a list of behaviors Klein doesn't
like. Klein does not expound upon the underlying beliefs or theories
that might give an understanding of how "liberal hawks" would approach a range
of issues and he certainly does not allow the "liberal hawks" to speak for
themselves on such points, he merely defines the concept in terms of his
negative opinion regarding their outcomes on two specific issues.
If you're not projectile vomiting by now, then you have a stronger stomach than I....
but Whiskey Fire ends brilliantly:
"The essay is crazy. The guy thinks the primary debate about foreign policy is between "pacifists" and "militarists" -- as if the primary reason anyone opposed the war in Iraq was from a position of committed pacifism. Well, maybe a small minority did, and good for them. But most of us opposed the war in Iraq because it was obviously a stupid fucking idea. The administration was clearly spouting bullshit about why it was necessary and how much it would cost in money and lives. "
You know....sometimes I think there are some bloggers who just have TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS....