BHL ain't your typical Weekly Standard mouth-breather. Nor is he Christoper Hitchens. Regardless, Bernard-Henry Levy points out some of the saving graces of newconservatism during
this debate with staunch leftist and Marxist sympathizer Anatol Lieven.
I read the print version on the train this morning and I found myself agreeing with BHL on a few key points:
- America should feel the duty to intervene, be it Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, or *gulp* Iraq(1).
- Most of the neoconservatives these days would have been much at home with the liberal Democrats that got us into Vietnam in the first place.
- At least we are promoting tyrants like Massoud (late Afghani mujaheedin leader) and Ahmed Chalabi over the likes of Augusto Pinochet.
That does not remedy the overwhelming problem with them:
- Their "messianic democracy" -- We cannot afford to force democratic change via gunpoint. There are other more humane, effective, and less costly alternatives.
It's unfortunate that the non-threat of Iraq may in the end keep us from succesfully confronting the much greater threat posed by Iran.
(1) The invasion of Kuwait warranted intervention. Indeed, our continued presence and sanctions of Iraq since 1991 was an intervention. One could argue that our failure to support the southern insurgency of the early '90s was a failure to intervene.
We knew before the invasion that Iraq was not a serious threat, so, the duty to intervene was a purely humanitarian mission of deposing Saddam. It was not as high a priority as the humanitarion missian to alleviate the suffering of people under --yes-- more brutal dictatorships in Africa.
Our duty to intervene should also be tempered by our ability (and our preparedness) to handle the aftermath, as well as the considerations of what the risks of the end effects of the intervention is if it doesn't turn out to be wine and roses.