This post is a few weeks old but something in it struck me and I haven’t been able to get it out of my head since:
Well, you know what. 6 billion people around the globe deserve freedom. It doesn’t mean I’m going to pay for all of them to have it, and it also doesn’t mean I’m willing to die for their freedom. My freedom, yeah. My country’s, sure. Everybody’s? Not so much.
There’s a limit to what one country can do, and since when did Republicans decide that it was time for America to save the entire world? That’s not a hell of a criteria for declaring war, or narrowing down which wars you declare and which ones you take a pass on.
Of course, the above assumes that what we have now as a rationale for being in Iraq and Afghanistan (“We Will Beat The Terror Out Of You And You Will Thank Us For It”) is a strategy adopted formally by some governing body and not a collection of bullshit excuses by a bunch of people just trying to shut up anybody who’d point out that the Taliban is back and the Iraqis hate us and wish we’d leave.
But if it was a strategy, would it be a good one? Should we, in fact, take the position that we will go around the world shooting anything that bugs us? What bugs us? How do you get on the list?
My personal repsonse is the same as John’s: Look, we can’t do it all. That’s what organizations like the UN are for, that’s what alliances are for, that’s what international humanitarian associations are for. If the people spouting off about the cause of freedom being justification enough for any military operation truly wanted to make the whole world sing in perfect harmony, they wouldn’t spend all their time dumping on the few structures we have in place to influence world events, and think of something a little more sophisticated than whipping our their big long thick national gun and blowing everybody away.