Moral Authority
James Taranto, writing for the Wall St. Journal, tried to anticipate an argument by anti-war types:
Here’s what’s going to happen next: Someone will argue that America lacks the "moral standing" to oppose Russian intervention in Georgia, because we intervened in Iraq "without U.N. approval." When the U.S. liberated Iraq, of course, it was acting to enforce the Security Council’s own resolutions. So America’s acting to overcome U.N. fecklessness will be invoked as an excuse for Russia’s unprovoked violation of another country’s sovereignty. U.N. idolatry runs counter to the U.N.’s own purported reason for existing.
As blogger TigerHawk notes, though, they may not ever make that argument because they won’t have much of anything to say. After checking off the many groups that have nothing to say about it (and crediting the one that did), he concludes:
So far, at least, it is safe to conclude that these organizations are not so much anti-war as they are anti-American and anti-Israeli. It is useful to clear that up.
Since that post, two sites have said at least something about it. Democracy Now has conducted an interview with a retired Air Force Colonel about the history in the region. The Stop the War Coalition has an opinion piece that essentially states that Georgia is as much to blame for the conflict. But there is still basically no real outrage. Pretty much all quiet on the anti-war front. And if the only wars that they are against, or even bother to work up a sweat about, are those involving the US or Israel, then I’d say they need to relabel themselves or lose their own moral authority.
[tags]moral authority,anti-war,Democracy Now,Stop the War Coalition,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today[/tags]
Filed under: Doug • Liberal • Russia • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I think it is entirely sensible and logical that US anti-war groups criticize US policy. That is because we live in the US and when the US acts on our behalf, we have some duty to oppose that US policy, if we think the US policy is wrong.
Which is not to say that we’re unconcerned about nations behaving badly around the world, just that our FIRST responsibility is asking our OWN gov’t to behave.
“Remove the plank from your own eye and then you will be able to see to remove the speck from your brothers’ eye…”
Having said that, it IS important that peace groups work on promoting peacemaking policies around the world, and we do. But we are few and underfunded and overworked. It is another reason why it would make sense for the US to create a Dept of Peace, to invest time and energy on thinking through how best to respond to these types of problems when they happen.
I think you missed the point. No one’s saying they shouldn’t speak. Only that they’re rather silent about wars not involving the US or Israel, even those larger, “international” groups.
And if they do follow the Taranto prediction, they’ll be criticizing America for getting in a war the many UN resolutions called for if they were broken and that Congress gave the President authorization for. Say what you want about our reasons to go into Iraq, but to then stay silent on Russian and Georgia is disingenuous.
I think you are missing my point. One OUGHT to be primarily critical of one’s own nation. We are concerned about OUR policies first and foremost.
When other nations have policies we disagree with, we may eventually get around to critiquing them – especially when it is as violent and deadly as Russia’s actions are now.
But the point is: We criticize OUR nation’s policies when it’s wrong because it’s OUR nation. For other nations, we advocate that OUR nation have responsible policies in place to deal with misbehaving nations.
I mean, I can and have criticized Russia for its current invasion. I can and have criticized Iran for some of its actions.
But those are meaningless protestations. I’m not able to change Russia’s policy. I am not a citizen of that country. I am a citizen of the US.
Yes, it is a horrible thing when nations behave badly. We desperately need to work on reasonable workable solutions/approaches for when those incidents arise. And we can and do criticize such behavior, but mainly I’m interested in what WE do. How WE behave and/or react.
And it is a bit weird to expect the US to condemn what they have wrongly done themselves. First, remove the plank from your own eye.
"International A.N.S.W.E.R."
Code Pink, while mostly US-oriented, has campaigns targeting Canada, Pakistan (and not just its US support), and Sudan.
Stop the War Coalition, a British group, while targeting the Iraq war, can protest war in a generic sense, yet also find time to protest a foreign leader, President Bush. Precious little about Putin (and nothing about Medvedev).
I understand your point. But it’s not addressing my point in the post. The lack of outrage over the Russo-Georgia war by anti-war groups, that indeed deal with wars not of US origin, is telling.
Further, appealing to any sort of morality, using whatever standard of morality they choose to use, will be utterly disingenuous. Whether they’ve used that appeal or not, I don’t know, but they don’t have a leg to stand on if they do.
There is no lack of outrage on the part of any of my Leftish friends or community. We prayed for Georgia last Sunday at church. We prayed for Russia’s and US’ leaders, for wisdom, for action.
I guess what I’m saying is that we tend to be pragmatic – we can condemn Russia for this invasion, but to what end? We have no say over what Russia does.
So we tend to save our words for calls for action from those we DO have a say with. We can condemn Russia, but it would have no significant effect. But, on the other hand, we can call for the US to have policies that would try to deal with these sorts of issues and we CAN expect our leaders to listen.
At least for the folks in my circles, that is more the reasoning – it’s a pragmatic thing.