Posted by
John Ostrowski on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:53:07 AM
Pat Buchanan has been taking one hell of a beating from conservatives lately. The worst part about much of the criticism is that much of it consists of ad hominem attacks on Buchanan, instead of logical arguments against his position. For instance, looking through user comments on his last three columns (
7/25,
7/21,
7/18) shows that many people are simply flinging the anti-semite accusation at Buchanan.
This is the sort of thing that really worries me. Conservatives love to point out that in so many situations, instead of thoughtfully debating, liberals simply hurl emotional insults at opponents, such as "racist," "sexist," "bigot," etc. Unfortunately, so many neo-conservatives betray their liberal tendencies when they accuse Buchanan of anti-semitism. Generally, liberals pride themselves on "diversity," so long as that doesn't include intelletual and viewpoint diversity, but simply an artificial diversity (based on appearances). Conservatives like to scoff at "diversity" in the liberal sense, but we should pride ourselves on our willingness to tolerate dissenting views within the movement. Buchanan is a dissenting view at the moment and instead of embracing this dissent and arguing with him, the insults start flying. Sad, really.
However, I'm more than pleased to reply to arguments against Buchanan that are not reliant on ad hominem attacks, but instead are intellectually driven.
Proverbs 2:2 and
SPQR have both blogged about Buchanan's columns, and both have written posts that don't resort to charges of anti-semitism. I applaud them for this, and feel compelled to stick up for Buchanan, as I agree with him for the most part.
Proverbs 2:2 writes:
It is my opinion that Mr. Buchanan is also in error when he states "No,
this is nor our war." This is our war Mr. Buchanan. There is a global
war on terror and anyone can see that. We must support and stand behind
the nation of Israel it has a right to defend itself as a sovereign
nation.
Buchanan never denies Israel the right to defend itself, but he does point out that Israel's response have unfortunately targeted Lebanese civilians.
SPQR looks to defend the actions taken by Israel against Lebanon:
Despite the protestations by typically anti-Semitic nations such as
France to the outbreak of combat operations, Israel’s response is
entirely justified and within measure. This is after all war. What
exactly was Israel to do? Nothing? Was that supposed to lead to some
sort of resolution in your world view? Is Israel to keep on doing
nothing all the way up to Iran sneaking an atomic bomb into Hezbollah’s
hands?
Ceasing what appears to be indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese civilians would not constitute doing nothing. Israel can (and should) pursue Hezbollah and seek to wipe them out, but doing this does not require Israel to bomb civilian targets. I'm a strong proponent of the theory of just war (as advocated by the Church), and believe that civilian targets should never be targets. Of course, wars have collateral damage. But, collateral damage should come by way of targetting military bases/targets. Excess damage done to civilians is justified so long as it is proportional to the good done by the attack on the enemy.
However, SPQR sees fit to condemn the Lebanese for complacency:
As for Lebanon, if they are a loser in this then they have only
themselves to blame. It is Lebanon that, rather than disarming
Hezbollah as required under the agreement that saw Israel withdraw in
2000, instead chose to embrace Hezbollah into the government of Lebanon
itself. That makes the government of Lebanon culpable in any action
Hezbollah takes. It is a reality of war that civilian populations
suffer. They may or may not have supported the actions of their
government but unfortunately they have to pay the price because it is
THEIR government. Spare me the “innocent Lebanon paying the price."
Yes, Hezbollah has a political wing that controls part of the Lebanese parliament. This is what happens with a democracy -- people get to choose who is ruling them. Unfortunately, Lebanon has not been able to disarm Hezbollah. Neither did Israel during their occupation of southern Lebanon. I don't see how a still-in-its-infancy democracy can be condemned for failing to do what Israel itself couldn't.
And I fail to see how innocent Lebanese need to pay the price for the sins of terrorists who reside in their nation and for the government's inability to disarm the terrorists. Here's a scenario, a terrorist group from Canada crosses the U.S. border and kidnaps two soldiers and kills some others. Say also that this terrorist group has a political wing that controls some of the legislature. We would expect Canada to crack down on this, but should the Canadian citizens be bombed simply for existing in a country where terrorists also reside? I don't see how the bombing of innocents works toward anything good. Whereas a strong response against Hezbollah (and only against Hezbollah) probably would have been cheered almost unanimously, an attack against Lebanese citizens only serves to cause the victims to sympathize with Hezbollah. I will immediately be condemend as a weak-kneed pacifist for this statement, but it is true. Kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight does not warrant a response that leaves hundreds of civilians dead. The sympathy of the victims and their families will not go to the attacker. Even though Hezbollah struck first, the citizens see a response from Israel that they will interpret (quite correctly) as disproportionate.
I appreciate the posts by the above mentioned bloggers, as they did not fall into malicious name calling. Nonetheless, I believe them to be wrong. Buchanan may not be 100% right, but for the most part he gets it correctly. Israel needs to scale down their attacks if they want this war to be a just one.