A conversation with a good friend from grad school, and a viewing of Hotel Rwanda, has prompted the following two questions for this week.
1. Why do we (Americans, Westerners in general), still think that the UN is an effective governing body, capable of enforcing peace treaties between state actors and non-state actors alike?
2. Why does the Left (of which I claim to lean towards) think that pulling our troops out of Iraq is a viable long-term solution?
It pains me to think that a "pull-out platform" will guide the upcoming congressional elections.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that the left tends to forget how long it takes to set up a democracy. "We've overthrown the leader, isn't that enough?" seems to be the mentality.
1.) We don't. At least, thinking people don't. A semi-democratic institution which gives equal voice to lunatics is letting the inmates run the asylum. And when Kofi "Oil for food scandal? What scandal?" Annan is in charge, all kinds of bad things happen. Here's an idea. He should actually enforce the rules against child rape by peacekeepers in Africa. Then his legacy might not be as the most incompetent Secretary General ever. And that's tough shoes to fill.
2.)Because the Left hasn't had a good idea since Gladstone's time.
:)
Nathan:
1. I certainly agree with you on Annan, and that rational, thinking people do not give weight to the UN's 'authority.' However, both sides of the political spectrum pushed for a UN-backed peace between Israel and Hezbollah. (Which, in my opinion, is bound to fail, and I am still puzzled as to why Israel would agree to a settlement with a non-state, terrorist organization.)
2. The Right has yet to provide a convincing plan for Iraq, regardless of the failures of the Left. If they have one (which I actually think they do and that it is comparatively better than pulling-out), they could certainly be more vocal in sharing their plans. I would be more likely to vote for them in the future. :)
Shayna:
Imposing democracy at the expense of our own could possibly be the cost of maintaining our hegemony. (A hegemon spends so much effort investing in it's position that ultimately, it loses that position and power.) I'm starting to agree that our role in foreign affairs should be extremely limited (perhaps just to humanitarian assistance). Though I do not necessarily think that losing our position as the world power is a bad thing. In fact, as a Christian, I think it might be a good thing.
Post a Comment