Another “War of Muslim Liberation.”

This weekend, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol editorialized promptly in favor of the newly-launched American military campaign against the regime of Muamar Gaddafi.  I have always been grateful that the Standard has, to my knowledge, been consistently pro-life from the beginning, and that it has often published insightful and respectful pieces on Catholic leaders such as John Paul II (including this nice piece by Kristol himself).  Nevertheless, there are some problems with Kristol’s argument.

In the first place, Kristol suggests that the Libya intervention should be understood as America’s fifth altruistic war of “Muslim liberation” in the last two decades and also as part of a proud and unbroken tradition of freedom-promoting Republican foreign policy – a tradition that proceeds from Reagan to Bush I, to Dole, to Bush II, and finally to McCain.  It is not clear, however, that the tradition is as consistent as he says.  No doubt the Republican Party has long favored some kind of promotion of freedom through American foreign policy.  But Ronald Reagan did not commit the American military to any wars of “Muslim liberation.”  For that matter, with the small exception of Grenada aside, Reagan did not commit the American military to any wars of liberation at all.  Rather, he chose to build American military strength and project American resolve and clarity of moral vision, while putting various forms of pressure short of war on America’s unfree adversaries.  And while the first President Bush did lead the effort to roll back Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait, he pointedly refused to involve America in any attempt to liberate Iraq itself from the rule of Saddam Hussein – a decision for which he has been criticized by some promoters of the freedom agenda in foreign policy.  Those critics held that Bush I had failed to “finish the job” in Iraq.  That criticism, however, looked more powerful before America had discovered how much it would cost and how long it would take to finish that job.  In any case, it is not at all obvious that the Libya mission is part of a consistent modern Republican foreign policy.

Second, Kristol sets the terms of the debate in a way that is artificially favorable to such interventions.  He invites “the worriers and the withdrawers” to make a case against America’s wars of Muslim liberation in the Middle East, while also admonishing them not to rely demagogically on the public’s frustration and weariness with difficult and long wars.  But is it the opponents of such action that are especially obliged to make the case against it?  Kristol writes as if the good of intervening in order to promote freedom is so obvious as to be the default position, while the opponents of such things are to be invited to make a case, if they can, against it.  Just as a defendant is held to be innocent until proven guilty, so, apparently, an American military intervention is to be held beneficial until proven otherwise.  But one could just as reasonably demand the opposite presuppositions: for example, that intervening in another country’s civil war is generally a bad idea unless someone can come up with powerful reasons to do it.

Finally, the waging of wars of “Muslim liberation” is surely far more problematic than Kristol supposes.  With the exception of America’s Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999, wars of “Muslim liberation” seem usually to involve liberating some Muslims from other Muslims.  Which is to say that wars of “Muslim liberation” involve, as in Libya, the killing of Muslims.  Can we be certain that Muslims will uniformly regard this as a favor?

393 views

Categories:Uncategorized

3 thoughts on “Another “War of Muslim Liberation.”

  1. Brad Birzer says:

    Carson, nicely argued and written. Kristol should not be speaking for the Republican party and certainly has no claim to the Reagan legacy. The neoconservatives are not patriots of America or of the West. They seem to be nationalists with a strong desire for empire. Reagan was a patriot and a man of integrity. Interesting enough, our most peaceful decades were the 1920s, 30s, 50s, and 80s.

    1. Carson Holloway says:

      Thanks, Brad. And thanks for your kinds words a couple of weeks ago when Joshua introduced me to the site. That conference we attended together is now almost ten years ago!

  2. GREG SMITH says:

    Dear Carson – Jefferson believed that given the opportunity, any people would build a free deomcratic civil society. We saw it happen in Japan and Germany post WW-II and today parts of the former Soviet Union are at least trying to get there. But what if Jefferson was wrong? What if some peoples, given the opportunity will instead revert to tribalism, secterianism or just outright everyone-for-themselves corruption. We’ll likely leave Iraq in a Sunni-Sheite-Kurd war of all against all and in Afganistan, Kharzi’s kleptocracy will likely fall to the Talaban shortly after we withdraw. If Mr. Kristol thinks I’m wrong, I hope he’s right. ~ Best regards, Greg Smith

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.