WSJ skewering the Red Cross
While I do think that a great deal more could have been done to prevent the Gitmo and Abu Graib violence, I also agree with WSJ and others that the Red Cross stepped way out of line here and deserves real censure. The Red Cross exists because of the U. S. government and should be the first organization to defend the "Responsibility to Protect" ideology over and against the previous "Right to Intervene" concepts that inevitably require disaster to occur before action can be taken.
This default "hate America" mindset is truly the most insidious most unintellectual ideology out there. It is wholly bankrupt when subject to even a minor empirical test. (name one nation that frees other nations from tyranny without U.S. military support or financial aid.) But this is unimportant to the hate America camp. It staggeringly unintellectual, brutally anti-humanist, and closeted to facts that defeat its premise.
I'm just flummoxed every time I think of its willful blind malice. I just don't get it.
This default "hate America" mindset is truly the most insidious most unintellectual ideology out there. It is wholly bankrupt when subject to even a minor empirical test. (name one nation that frees other nations from tyranny without U.S. military support or financial aid.) But this is unimportant to the hate America camp. It staggeringly unintellectual, brutally anti-humanist, and closeted to facts that defeat its premise.
I'm just flummoxed every time I think of its willful blind malice. I just don't get it.
posted by JCH | 11:40 AM
1 Comments:
Phil, I honestly cannot claim my reaction to the Red Cross's malicious glee is truly reasonable. As you say, they have a job to do. I am just so utterly tired of selective moral blindess - like considering Iraq an 'imaginary' threat, for instance.
It wasn't imaginary to 25 million Iraqis, Kurds and Shi'ites living there. Nor Kuwait, nor Israel, or Iran, etc etc ad nauseum. It's disgustingly unintellectual and wholly outside even secular humanism as a moral code to claim that a brutal and horrific regime that we were fortunate enough to destroy before it could destroy us was somehow an 'imaginary' threat.
Sorry, I appreciate your comment. I'm just a little cranky on this subject. Victor Davis Hanson is my guy on this. There is also a great comparison of RTP v. RTI in Foreign Affairs awhile back - like Nov 2002? I'm sure you could google it up. Will blog it if I find it.
Post a Comment
<< Home