Comments on: Fallacies Regarding Doves, Iraq, And The Use of Military Force http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702 Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:02:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: INTJ http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702&cpage=1#comment-208568 INTJ Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:48:50 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702#comment-208568 It occurs to me that the primary problem is the definition of "exhausting other remedies." Hawks believe Iraq, for example, had 12 years of opportunity, in which it stonewalled, obfuscated, and even offered <em>casus belli</em> when it fired upon American aircraft. Doves believe that further diplomatic and economic pressure could have produced the desired results and forced compliance. The problem, of course, is in pinpointing the "tipping point," at which you can no longer afford to wait for other solutions, where the expected utility of diplomacy becomes negative. That point is, unfortunately, an unknown. Hawks are the ones who are willing to err on the side of force, potentially killing our soldiers and others, to avoid risking harm to our national interests, and Doves are the ones who are not willing to risk blood, either American or otherwise, until they feel they have tried everything else, and accept the risk that they may have waited too long. But even this is too simplistic, because not everyone is consistent. Hawks who believe it was right to go after Saddam, regardless of his possession or not of WMD's, and pave the way for democracy, may have protested President Clinton's unilateral use of force in Haiti, his redefinition of the American role in Somalia, and his invocation of the self-defense article to send NATO against Serbia, which never attacked the U.S. or its allies. Doves who oppose the Iraq war with all their might, may have insisted on force to end a perceived genocide in Kosovo, to force regime change against the warlord Aidid, to reinstall democratically elected Aristide, or to stop the violence in Darfur. Since priorities and principles shift depending on the individual perception, the only set definition I can offer is that Hawks are generally more disposed to allow the use of military force to defend narrowly defined national interests, while Doves are generally less disposed to allow the use of military force, and only to defend broader, more humanitarian, interests. It occurs to me that the primary problem is the definition of “exhausting other remedies.” Hawks believe Iraq, for example, had 12 years of opportunity, in which it stonewalled, obfuscated, and even offered casus belli when it fired upon American aircraft. Doves believe that further diplomatic and economic pressure could have produced the desired results and forced compliance. The problem, of course, is in pinpointing the “tipping point,” at which you can no longer afford to wait for other solutions, where the expected utility of diplomacy becomes negative. That point is, unfortunately, an unknown. Hawks are the ones who are willing to err on the side of force, potentially killing our soldiers and others, to avoid risking harm to our national interests, and Doves are the ones who are not willing to risk blood, either American or otherwise, until they feel they have tried everything else, and accept the risk that they may have waited too long.

But even this is too simplistic, because not everyone is consistent. Hawks who believe it was right to go after Saddam, regardless of his possession or not of WMD’s, and pave the way for democracy, may have protested President Clinton’s unilateral use of force in Haiti, his redefinition of the American role in Somalia, and his invocation of the self-defense article to send NATO against Serbia, which never attacked the U.S. or its allies. Doves who oppose the Iraq war with all their might, may have insisted on force to end a perceived genocide in Kosovo, to force regime change against the warlord Aidid, to reinstall democratically elected Aristide, or to stop the violence in Darfur.

Since priorities and principles shift depending on the individual perception, the only set definition I can offer is that Hawks are generally more disposed to allow the use of military force to defend narrowly defined national interests, while Doves are generally less disposed to allow the use of military force, and only to defend broader, more humanitarian, interests.

]]> By: Why Doves Are Cautious - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702&cpage=1#comment-79220 Why Doves Are Cautious - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:13:19 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702#comment-79220 [...] Michael P.F. van der Galiën has responded to my post on Fallacies Regarding Doves, Iraq, And The Use of Military Force, quoting from my post and then stating: And that is - of course - where Ron is wrong. There are quite some progressives who are now calling on politicians to rule out using military force against Iran. They are not just talking about not using military force now, they are talking about not using military force ever. You can even hear them argue that Iran with a nuclear weapon will not be as bad, as dangerous, as hawks suggest. Next ‘argument’: Israel has WMDs as well, if Israel is allowed to have them, shouldn’t we allow Iran to have them as well? All in all, these people would never support using force to prevent Iran from developing WMDs. [...] [...] Michael P.F. van der Galiën has responded to my post on Fallacies Regarding Doves, Iraq, And The Use of Military Force, quoting from my post and then stating: And that is – of course – where Ron is wrong. There are quite some progressives who are now calling on politicians to rule out using military force against Iran. They are not just talking about not using military force now, they are talking about not using military force ever. You can even hear them argue that Iran with a nuclear weapon will not be as bad, as dangerous, as hawks suggest. Next ‘argument’: Israel has WMDs as well, if Israel is allowed to have them, shouldn’t we allow Iran to have them as well? All in all, these people would never support using force to prevent Iran from developing WMDs. [...]

]]> By: Hawks and Doves and Foreign Policy « Michael P.F. van der Galiën http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702&cpage=1#comment-79185 Hawks and Doves and Foreign Policy « Michael P.F. van der Galiën Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:13:53 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1702#comment-79185 [...] Jun 19th, 2007 by mvdg Jason Steck wrote a good, thoughtful post about “liberal hawks,” in response to Ezra Klein’s post, Ron Chusid’s post and, finally, my post on this subject. [...] [...] Jun 19th, 2007 by mvdg Jason Steck wrote a good, thoughtful post about “liberal hawks,” in response to Ezra Klein’s post, Ron Chusid’s post and, finally, my post on this subject. [...]

]]>