Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
I don't know what CodePink or any of those seriously anti-war groups think, but here is my take on Libya as a decently anti-war liberal. I think Obama is using this NATO mission as a precedent for future intervention in countries and regions where dictators are violent and/or genocidal to their people. It's kindof like if something like Darfur happens again, the US has a precedent to take action through NATO and the UN to stop genocide. I don't think we should do this every time, especially when we are already in two wars, but once we get out of them and the financial hole created by them, I think we can play a role in preventing violence and genocide by dictatorial regimes. This type of action and the precedent it sets, I think, would make the anti-war crew happy because it would use our military might for "good."
That's ridiculous. Anti-war means anti-war, not "anti-war unless the war is just because the President is liberal". This article doesn't have to do with Libya either. It has to do with the decline of the anti-war movement after the election of Obama even though he maintained two wars and increased military might in Afghanistan. It shows that activism rarely crosses party lines.
I stand by my first point, and I didn't read the article because it was a PDF. I will concede to your point on the movement as a whole, but it's a lot easier to be a movement when something hasn't started yet, and a President is using a massive media campaign to push the country into war, then it is when a war is already 7 or 9 years deep, depending on which one your talking about.
Post a Comment