home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=93TT1725>
- <title>
- May 17, 1993: How the Doves Became Hawks
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
- May 17, 1993 Anguish over Bosnia
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- ESSAY, Page 74
- How the Doves Became Hawks
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>Charles Krauthammer
- </p>
- <p> "If there is one overriding principle that will guide me
- in this job, it will be the inescapable responsibility to build a
- peaceful world and to terminate the abominable injustices and
- conditions that still plague civilization."
- </p>
- <p>-- U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright,
- </p>
- <p> Feb. 1, 1993
- </p>
- <p> It has been a long time since American liberals have been
- accused of excessive interventionism abroad. About 30 years.
- John Kennedy in his Inaugural Address promised to "pay any
- price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
- oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of
- liberty." It was the single most ambitious formulation of
- American goals in the cold war.
- </p>
- <p> Such expansiveness led Kennedy into Vietnam. And that led
- liberals not just to desert the Vietnam adventure, but to desert
- the very vision of American internationalism that Kennedy, and
- Democrats from Harry Truman to Hubert Humphrey, had championed.
- </p>
- <p> With Vietnam, American liberalism entered a period of
- profound isolationism. Just about every subsequent intervention,
- from Nicaragua to Kuwait, aroused loud liberal protest. The
- high-water mark was reached on Jan. 12, 1991, when Democrats led
- the fight to deny President Bush authority to use force against
- Iraq--and came within three votes of carrying the Senate.
- </p>
- <p> Another age, another presidency, another trumpet. Bill
- Clinton declared in his Inaugural Address that America will act
- "with force when necessary" to protect its "vital interests."
- But he did not stop there. He then pledged American action when
- "the will and conscience of the international community is
- defied."
- </p>
- <p> Thus was enunciated the Clinton doctrine of humanitarian
- intervention. Yes, there will be interventions for our national
- interest. But there will also be interventions for reasons of
- conscience. It has been a long road from Vietnam: the
- conscientious objector has become the conscientious warrior.
- </p>
- <p> This declaration was greeted as a breakthrough, a new
- vision of America in the post-cold war world. A breakthrough it
- is. And a dangerous one. It is getting us into Bosnia where,
- despite convoluted attempts at fashioning some rationale based
- on some vital American interest, everyone knows we are going in
- for reasons of conscience.
- </p>
- <p> Is conscience a good enough reason? Many liberals think
- so. Indeed, for many, conscience is the only good reason. The
- new liberal orthodoxy is that only disinterested intervention
- is pure and pristine enough to justify the use of force.
- Violence undertaken for the purpose of securing American
- interests is not.
- </p>
- <p> This is the key to understanding the amazing transmutation
- of cold war and Gulf War doves into Bosnia hawks: their deep
- suspicion of motives of national interest. In a recent debate,
- Anthony Lewis called George Bush a "gutless wimp" for letting
- the Serbs overrun Bosnia. It was pointed out that the gutless
- wimp took half a million Americans to war to liberate Kuwait.
- "Yes," replied Lewis triumphantly, "he did because of oil,
- O-I-L, the famous three-letter word." Any wimp, you see, can go
- to war for some vital national interest. Real men go to war for
- reasons of right.
- </p>
- <p> For post-cold war liberalism, self-interest is a tainted,
- corrupting motive for intervention. It is not just a dispensable
- criterion for intervention; it is disqualifying. The apparent
- liberal flip-flops on intervention now begin to make sense. In
- the Persian Gulf, where American national interests are
- seriously engaged, they opposed armed intervention. In Somalia,
- where American national interests are not at all engaged, they
- supported armed intervention. And in Bosnia, where American
- national interests stand to be seriously jeopardized by
- intervention, they are positively enthusiastic for intervention.
- </p>
- <p> Not, of course, out of any desire to injure America. On
- the contrary, out of the deep desire to purify, to redeem
- America by making it an instrument of justice. The critics do
- not lack for patriotism. On the contrary, they sincerely wish
- to ennoble America with a foreign policy of altruism. And
- because only intervention devoid of self-interest is morally
- unimpeachable, it is the only kind that a good conscience can
- support.
- </p>
- <p> What to say of these liberal hawks? That they are marked
- by good faith but a terrible confusion. The confusion is
- between individual and national morality. In private conduct,
- altruism is the ideal. For a nation, it can mean ruin. In
- private conduct, self-interest is a suspect motive. Intervening
- in a fight for reasons of right is the stuff of western heroes.
- Intervening in a fight because you need the weaker party's oil
- is not.
- </p>
- <p> But it is fatally naive to transfer such reasoning to
- foreign policy. Nations are not individuals. Nations live in a
- state of nature. There is no higher authority to protect them.
- If they do not protect themselves, they die. Ignoring one's
- interests, squandering one's resources in fits of altruism, is
- the fastest road to national disaster.
- </p>
- <p> In such a dangerous arena, thinking with one's heart is a
- serious offense. Foreign policy is not social work. Yes, we
- should risk war when our will and conscience are challenged. But
- only when our most vital interests are challenged too.
- </p>
- <p> God protect us from our better instincts. In the
- post-Soviet world it is difficult to enunciate firm principles
- of American action. But until we figure out what we must do, we
- can start by prudently deciding what we must not do: allow
- ourselves to be driven to war by unreflective, overweening
- moralism.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-