One of the challenges put toward the pro-war neo-conservatives as the war passes its climactic point is why the concern for the victims of this particular tyrant? Before the war, much of the talk was about WMD and support for terrorism, but until clear evidence of either pops up many on the pro-war side are talking about the liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people (yours truly included). And now some anti-war paleo-cons and liberals are challenging us: what about all the other people in the world living under tyrrany? If the liberation of the Iraqi people was so important what about the rest?
A good point. What about them indeed? First, let me say that I was never one of those conservatives who was reflexively opposed to the use of force in countries undergoing upheaval such as Kosovo/Serbia or Rwanda. I thought then and do now that we, as the world’s superpower and a nation founded on Christian moral principles, have a duty to intervene in those places where the weak are being exploited or oppressed by the strong.
So I say to those who object that having shown our resolve to take action in Iraq—a country that provided a threefold reason for action: human-rights abuse, supporting terrorism, and WMD proliferation—other autocrats must be warned that they are on notice. I hope the Bush administration turns its attention to places like North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe and terror groups like the Colombian Marxist rebels and Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Not all these situations will require the same solution—armed conflict—but they all require application of the Bush Doctrine. We have been fond of saying that after 9/11 it’s a new world. Let’s make sure that isn’t just a cliche, but an aim and a driving motivation.
