Monday, May 31, 2004

constraints on Bush

Tacitus suggests a military solution to the genocide going on in the Sudan (link via Instapundit). Some commenters say that Bush would never do this because there are no national interests at stake (a less charitable reader might think they were saying that Bush would never do this because he has no personal interest at stake). Although I have criticized Bush myself for the lack of US action, I don't think it is fair to blame him for not starting another war.

If there is any fault for this, it is the fault of the left for making it impossible for him to do so. What would happen if he did send special forces, arms, and air power to help Chad attack the Sudan? Well first, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and many others on the left, aided and abetted by the national press, would attack him mercilessly for using the tragedy for his own personal political gain. They would claim that he timed the intervention to coincide with the elections for his own benefit. Never mind whether it actually benefited him or not.

Second, the left would start immediately to see the good side of the barbarians that are committing genocide. They would have news stories about all the babies that were killed by evil American and Chadian forces. They would start to call for giving a peace a chance, meaning that we should leave things at the status quo, with the perpetrators of genocide benefiting from all their cruelty and inhumanity. Soon the barbarians in this conflict would have the full support of the American left, who would be trying to make us lose another good cause, as they did successfully in Vietnam and as they tried to do in Afghanistan and as they are trying to do in Iraq.

The left has proven time and again that no villainy is to great to support if it helps them defeat the Republicans.

No comments: