Pax Krauthama

I'd really like to see Reihan Salam's reaction to things like this. Reihan is a vocal supporter of the Iraqi occupation. To his credit, his arguments tend to be more concerned with security than with democracy building. But how far to take it? Certainly, if we embark in the straightforwardly imperial mission that Krauthammer seems to advocate, we could increase security in many places. But does the appeal to security overwhelm our most basic principles of self-determination and democracy? I honestly wonder, in Reihan's case, since he has been such an enthusiastic supporter of a war for security.

We have been in the business of telling the world that the cause of democracy and the interests of America are identical for about seven years now. I wonder just how frank men like Krauthammer and his ilk would have us be in this new iteration? Would we keep the fig leaf of democracy promotion? Or would we accept the bare imperialist nature of our foreign policy project, and stop with that pretense? I very much doubt it. I don't think great powers ever have a particularly difficult time handling the double-think of wars of aggression and belief in democracy.

Since 9/11 the word imperialism has been, in mainstream political discourse, essentially off the table. Criticism of the Iraq war has been prevalent, of course-- but you just didn't drop the I-word, in part because the neoconservatives so zealously asserted their interest in democracy. But in the larger sense, I think this is again a facet of the fact that so many conservatives (even the heterodox) simply can't conceive of an American action as immoral or rapacious. So many start from the position that the American is the definition of the good, and then align their moral critique of the world in kind. What must remain is this simple fact: if we remain in Iraq when the people of Iraq oppose our doing so, we are nothing but an aggressive, occupying army, acting for our interests and access to resources. We might spruce things up with the odd appeal to stability; but then Kipling did, too. People are capable of recognizing that the British expression of a desire for stability could be honestly made, while still being at heart a justification for a naked resource grab. I wonder if people can hold those two thoughts in mind regarding Iraq.