The Progressive Peacenik Myth

I am in almost total agreement with this article. The distinction between liberals and neocons is apt: "Left is indeed willing to use military force after all, just so long as no discernible American interest is at stake." This might be OK, if the record of liberal wars (Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, ...) were not so apalling.

The article points out that the neocons can cleverly use the leftist (Wilsonian) position as a fall back: "We did it for democracy, freedom, and the children." How closing down dissenting publications and replacing one vicious pawn of the US within another brings democracy and freedom and how killing the children supports them requires some twisted logic. Obviously, there is a non-intervenionist (peace-loving) left, just as there is a non-intervenionist conservative tradition.

It is interesting that the majority of Americans now oppose the Iraq war (and would have always opposed the war had they not been lied to about the threat that Iraq posed), but the mainstream of both political parties continue to support the intervention.

Possible silver lining: Will Edwards make some tepid criticism of this latest foreign-policy fiasco?