The phrase "lesser of two evils" often comes up at this time every four years, but this November, I think, it's too cynical a formula. Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry can be credibly described as "evils." They have their faults, some of which are glaring. They are both second-tier politicians, thrust into the spotlight at a time when we desperately need those in the first circle of talent and vision. But they are not evil. When the papers carry pictures of 50 Iraqi recruits gunned down in a serried row, as Stalin and Hitler did to their enemies, we need have no doubt where the true evil lies. The question before us, first and foremost, is which candidate is best suited to confront this evil in the next four years. In other words: Who is the lesser of two risks?
And the rehash of the case for war, new-and-improved with help from the Duelfer Report, is useful, since so many people are still confused about it:
Equally, [Bush's] presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval on the basis of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons and his violation of countless U.N. resolutions. I still believe that his decision was the right one. The only reason we know that Saddam was indeed bereft of such weaponry is because we removed him; we were going to have to deal with the crumbling mafia-run state in the heart of the Middle East at some point; and the objections of the French and Germans and Russians were a function primarily of mischief and corruption. And what we discovered in Iraq--from mass graves to children's prisons to the devastating effect of sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iraqis--only solidifies the moral case for removing the tyrant. The scandal of the U.N. oil-for-food program seals the argument.
But Sullivan's does too much armchair-generalling, he's wrong about which candidate is better on the deficit, and he's paranoid about the social right and Christian fundamentalists. My take on fundamentalism here.
[UPDATE: Andrew is right to mention Abu Ghraib too. He writes:
I would add one more thing: Abu Ghraib. In one gut-wrenching moment, the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow.
My reaction to Abu Ghraib, from last May, here. Do read it. In my opinion, it's one of my best.
As for Sullivan, he doesn't ask this but: has Kerry every mentioned Abu Ghraib? Not that I know of. Why not? He criticizes the president for the Patriot Act. He criticizes him for shifting his attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, even though he advocated that at the time. Yet somehow, supporting democracy in Iraq, supporting democracy in Afghanistan, highlighting human rights abuses, these things just don't occur to Kerry. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. He is a self-confessed war criminal after all. He said in 1971:
"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed," Kerry said in the sound bite. "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
Yeah. No wonder he doesn't think Abu Ghraib is worth complaining about.]
No comments:
Post a Comment