A Boston Globe (free registration req'd) editorial piece discusses the impact of Iraq and the Bush Administration has had on the average liberal hawk.
YESTERDAY'S REFERENDUM on the Iraqi constitution should have been a special triumph for those few liberal thinkers who supported the Iraq War. After all, so-called ''liberal hawks," more than their conservative nest mates, have in recent years been the loudest voices for a foreign policy based on human rights and democratic transformation abroad. The last American war, in Kosovo, was a liberal war, led by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The Serbian surrender, with the subsequent toppling of Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, has gone down in history as a victory of military might deployed in the service of liberal humanitarianism. Might not an Iraqi constitution-or at least a constitutional referendum-count as well?
Based on this definition, I would be classified as a liberal dove... I have no problem with deploying our armed services, as long as the enemy is a real threat, a "clear and present danger" if you will. Iraq did not qualify, but North Korea does. And the latter requires further diplomacy prior to major intervention.
The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive intervention, which I tend to refer to as American Imperialism, was professed by him to be for the sake of non-proliferation, a deterent of sorts. Fact of the matter is this: If you are a country that has not proven you have nukes, you are a possible target for US-led invasion (see Iraq). If, however you have nukes, or bluff well, (see North Korea and Iran) then you require further diplomacy from the Bush Administration, not immediate military intervention.
It may seem as though Bush and I agree here, that the presence of nuclear devices requires diplomacy only. I beg to differ. In my view, both cases, with nukes and without nukes, require diplomacy. However, military force, war, should be the last resort entirely, and should not be used until all other methods are used, including economic starvation wherein aid is cut-off, causing the country to rely solely on their few "friends". If this does not work, cut-off their friends as well. Yes, those that would truly suffer would be the target population, not the leaders. But would that population suffer under the weight of a full scale nuclear war?
I also would advocate the use of covert military, black ops in this case, something a family member of mine has informed me is illegal. Perhaps it is. Still, it would not be the first time a leader was assassinated by a foreign power.
I welcome debate on this.