By contrast, what is widely regarded as Bush senior’s finest hour-his decision to confront and overturn Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait-was animated by considerations that at least in part could better be described as neoconservative than realist. “How many lives might have been saved,” Bush père wrote to his children (including the current President) on the eve of the first Gulf war, “if appeasement had given way to force earlier in the late 30’s or earliest 40’s? How many Jews might have been spared the gas chambers, or how many Polish patriots might be alive today? I look at today’s crisis as ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’-yes, it is that clear.”
Or perhaps not. The President, who at first blush had not been inclined to evict Saddam from Kuwait by force, and then resorted to force that in the event was hugely successful, finally allowed the conflict of “good vs. evil” to end with evil still in business-thus setting in train the events leading to the invasion of Iraq by his son twelve years later.
Dienstag, 27. März 2007
Realists to the Rescue?
Bret Stephens hat vor einigen Wochen im Commentary Magazine eine ausführliche Kritik der realpolitischen Renaissance im allgemeinen und der Iraq Study Group im besonderen veröffentlicht, die jedem ans Herz zu legen ist, der in der Rückkehr der Realisten die Rettung von allen neokonservativen Übeln erwartet, und glaubt, bei einem Arrangement mit den Tyrannen der Welt hätten deren Untertanen Amerika deswegen plötzlich ganz besonders lieb. Sind ein paar Seiten, aber die lohnen sich!