Sunday, September 19, 2010

Why I don't like hippie-peacenick anti-war types.

I believe the Vietnam War was a criminal aggression against the Vietnamese. The anti-war movement of the Sixties was correct.

Nowadays however in the age of the Internet you have four basic types of anti-war agitators.

1) Chomskyites. Although Chomsky criticizes American elites specifically, Chomskyites criticize all Americans. All of the civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003 are America's fault. Stuff like that. Saddam Hussein wasn't that bad of a dictator. Greenwald is a Chomskyite. They believe human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do nothing but gin up war against foreign enemies of the week. America's only foreign policy goals are domination and imperialism according to Chomskyites. Saddam's annexation of Kuwait and 9-11 are just excuses and pretexts.

2) Pacifisits. All war is bad no matter what the specifics, context or circumstances. World War II is no different from Vietnam is no different from the American Civil War.

3) Isolationists. America has problems at home so we shouldn't spend money on foreign "adventures." Other anti-war types will borrow this rhetoric. I'd argue more Americans were selfishly (or rather self-interestedly) isolationist about Iraq and Afghansitan than actually anti-war per se. Human rights violations in other countries our not our concern. Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are a waste of money.

4) Politically partisan, as in donkeys versus elephants. They'll use isolationist and Chomskyite rhetoric about Bush's war in Iraq but the rules change for the good war in Afghanistan. Although, now many Democrats are leaning on Obama to end that war also.

No comments: