Hypocrisy on the left

In this blog, we've frequently been critical of hypocrisy on the right. Today, I want to explore a bit of hypocrisy from our side. It is the argument, made by many of us who oppose the Iraq war, that we shouldn't be there because it's become a "civil war." There are many reasons why we shouldn't be there, but, at least in my judgment, the fact that it's a "civil war" is not, in and of itself, one of them.

Consider for a moment many of the other troubled situations where we liberals have endorsed one level or another of U.S. interference. Take, for example, the Balkans and Clinton's engagement in that matter. If there was ever a civil war, that was one. Also, take for example, the outrage in Rawanda, in which we did not get involved, but about which Clinton has since apologized for not doing so. That, too, was certainly a civil war. Then, there's the Darfur crisis, which many liberals insist we should be doing more to solve. Isn't that a civil war as well?

Now, you might say there's a difference. In those other cases, there was a powerful side -- sometimes the official government side -- that was wiping out a weak, unprotected minority part of the population, often for religious reasons. We either became involved, or should have become involved, to protect that unprotected minority. It was, or would have been, a noble effort to protect the down-trodden. But, that doesn't get us off the hook in Iraq either. After all, if we leave (or perhaps even if we stay), it's quite plausible that the Shi'a majority will unleash a bloodbath against the minority Sunnis that won't look that different than what happened in Rawanda or what's happening in Darfur.

So, as I said at the outset, while there may be many reasons to leave Iraq, the mere fact that we're caught up in a civil war over there is not one of them -- unless, of course, you believe we should never become involved in situations like the Balkans, Darfur, or Rawanda.