Matt Stoller is a crazy Communist!
by James Gatz, Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:06:32 AM EDT
Well, ok, probably not.
But his position on Iraq is incredibly grounded in the Marxist worldview, which rejects case-by-case analysis of strategic interests (the 'realist' approach) and instead attributes all foreign policy decisions to the goals of imperialistic hegemony vs. utopian communal peace.
I think this sort of logic should be just as summarily rejected (and, if at all possible, mocked) by those of us in the 'reality-based community' as the evangelist neocon ideology of spreading Christianity, err, Democracy around the world through bullets and bombs.
More in the extended
I, like Barack Obama, am 'not against all wars, I'm against dumb wars'. I supported the war in Afgahnistan because Al-Qaida represented (and still does) a serious threat to the US national security. I opposed the war in Iraq from 2002 forward. I thought by invading Iraq we were getting distracted from the real threat, and likely to end up caught in the middle of a centuries old civil war fought over who was the rightful heir of Mohammed. I wanted no part of that, and unfortunately we're caught smack-dab in the middle of it.
I, like John Edwards, sincerely regret his decision to sponsor the Bush Administration's war policy, and wish he could go back and change his vote.
But, I, like Hillary Clinton, also understand that completely disengaging from Iraq is not a safe option. We need to stop fighting the civil war in mixed areas of Iraq. We need to get ALL US troops the hell away from Baghdad, al-Sadr, and IEDs. But we also need to maintain a force somewhere within striking distance of Anbar province to prevent organized Al-Qaida (they're in Iraq now, even if they weren't in 2003) camps from sprouting up like it's Kandahar circa 2001. We also owe some measure of security, I would say, to the Kurds, who I suspect would willingly accept US troops to protect their region from Iran, Syria, and Arab Iraqis.
My only quibble with Hillary on this is that I don't give a damn about oil security - we only get about 20% of our oil from the Middle East anyway, most of that from Saudi Arabia (and they can defend themselves, at least from outside threats), and it's not like they can DRINK the stuff, so we're always gonna be able to buy it on the world market.
But she's still closer to sanity on the issue of Iraq post-2009 than Matt Stoller, who seems more interested in blaming FDR, Truman, et al for today's world problems than actually addressing them. Listen, America makes mistakes sometimes. Our foreign policy has never been perfect. But I think our impact on the world (defeating colonialism, fascism, nazism, and communism) has been on the whole a positive one, and I'm not about to applaud a neo-Marxist denigration of the US just because it disagrees with the neo-con glorification of all things red, white, and blue.