December
16th 2009
Posted under Conservatism & Interventionism & Political Philosophy
TMZ has your Tiger gossip. You can count on www.conservativetimes.org to bring you all the intra paleo intrigue your heart desires. Two of our friends are squabbling. 
Justin Raimondo of www.antiwar.com attacks Daniel Larison of www.amconmag.com. In a revelation that surprised me, Daniel is defending the “surge” in Afghanistan.
Daniel responds to Justin here.
What's Up With That? on 17 Dec 2009 at 10:23 pm #
I agree with what Justin Raimondo says here.
“Such ideological ambidexterity is useful in a politician, but confusing when it comes to a pundit and/or theorist, except insofar as it imparts a “thoughtful” thumb-sucking air. But I guess that’s all you need to get interviewed by The Economist and awarded the mantle of “expertise.”"
Daniel Larison has definitely been playing up to the “thoughtful” pundit aspect for a while. Must be trying to get a job with a mainstream outfit and wants to appear “reasonable” and not like an isolationist or inflexible anti-war ideologue. There aren’t many paying jobs for anti-war types in foreign policy punditry land.
S.L. Toddard on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:39 am #
“Must be trying to get a job with a mainstream outfit… etc”
As much as I often agree with Justin Raimondo, I think the scorn he exhibited in that piece was entirely uncalled-for and wholly counterproductive. Justin Raimondo – *Justin Raimondo* – is Frumming Daniel Larison out of the paleo movement? I shouldn’t need to say anything more than that.
Daniel Larison has never written anything to make me question his sincerity or his patriotism. It surprised me as well, to be honest, but I don’t believe his current position on Afghanistan is actually a departure. I mean, has he argued for immediate total withdrawal? Have you ever read him describe Afghanistan as an unjust war? His writing has never given me any reason to doubt his sincerity – or his intelligence – and his position doesn’t violate a the principles of non-interventionism. He writes that he believes our war against Afghanistan was just (as do I), and wants America out (as do I). Where we differ is that he believes it necessary that we take some (relatively) small steps before leaving, and I do not. I have no reason to doubt that he believes those steps are necessary, or that he is sincere in his belief that we can accomplish that much with the men and the time we now have.
I disagree with him. That is what reasonable men do. But to launch an emotion-based attack on the man’s character – that’s what slimy neocons do to sway the simian mob. Raimondo should know better.
Weaver on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:29 am #
Larison argues the war promotes peace and order – that isn’t ideologically different from his usual.
I dunno what chain of correspondence took place behind the scenes, but you don’t win someone over with a piece like Raimondo’s. But politics stirs men’s blood.
I prefer Larison’s world view to Raimondo’s, but I suspect Larison is mistaken here. US influence in Afghanistan appears to be creating instability, not preventing it.
Weaver on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:40 am #
Who needs pundits who are overly simple, btw? Reality isn’t as simple as war = bad, even if in this case the war is likely bad.
RedPhillips on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:08 am #
I think Justin was harsher than he needed to be, but I do think this detracts some from Larison’s non-interventionist street cred, and I think this is what Justin is reacting to. Think of Justin as something of an anti-war ideology enforcer. To me, Larison’s reasoning concedes too much by assuming that long term stability can be enhanced by more troops and a longer presence. I think Afghanistan collapses into chaos when we leave whether we do it now, in two years or in five.
Larison has a frustrating tendency to aim his fire at the mainstream right without making it clear that his criticism is from the farther right. (So do several of the bloggers at AmCon.) So when the uninitiated read him it seems like Frum/Brooksesque moderation or even liberalism. (Not the foreign policy stuff obviously.) I would not insinuate that he does this because he is angling for a job, but Larison is not stupid or careless with his choice of words, so I don’t think he is unaware that he does it. It is a consistent pattern that seems to me pretty clear. He has a lot of liberal readers and admirers, and I suspect he believes (most likely correctly) that if he came out as a guns a blazin’ right-winger they would just write him off. So he plays his paleoish conservatism pretty close to the vest.
I have expressed my concern that he often comes off sounding more Frum than Fleming at his blog so this is not talking behind his back. The problem with this approach, from my perspective, is that his constant fire at the conservative movement without making it clear where he is coming from makes it easy for the movement robots to just write him off as a moderate Frum/Brooks/Noonan/Parker/(Miss)McCain style RINO apologist and so then they don’t have to take his very thoughtful and brilliant foreign policy analysis seriously. This doesn’t help me when I am trying to argue with the movement knuckleheads that there really are conservatives who don’t support interventionism.
RedPhillips on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:10 am #
Toddard, is the e-mail you post here with valid? If so, you’ve got mail from a few days ago. If not, send an e-mail to editors(at)conservativetimes(dot)org. Thanks.
S.L. Toddard on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:05 pm #
Red – sorry I missed your email. I just responded, and THANK YOU.
S.L. Toddard on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:07 pm #
“Larison’s reasoning concedes too much by assuming that long term stability can be enhanced by more troops and a longer presence. I think Afghanistan collapses into chaos when we leave whether we do it now, in two years or in five”
I agree 100%.
Bede on 18 Dec 2009 at 4:50 pm #
Although I often find myself in disagreement with Raimondo, in this instance I’m definitely in agreement with him.
Patroon on 20 Dec 2009 at 7:23 am #
Sadly this silly conflict that shows we have a problem agreeing to disagree without either name calling or questioning one’s motives or credibility.
Larison is right that we are giving the Chaffetzs of the world a lot of leeway in making them seem like their are anti-interventionist when they may very well just anti-Obama as CINC. However I think Raimondo is right when this shows that this is at least a first step and the interventionist ideology is not knee-jerk among all the Republicans, at least outside of the neocons.
A surge of lots of troops in Afghanistan with the design of increasing secuirty, hunting down bin Laden and working on a political settlement with the Taliban might work as a way towards peace as Larison may believe. However, the number of troops being sent is small for what they have to do, too much reliance is being put in creating an effective Afghan army led by a government which is notoriously corrupt and may have very well re-elected itself by ilegal means and no attempt at negotiations with the Taliban willing to talk is being made, as Raimondo would certainly point out.
So they both make good points. Why be at each others throats?
RedPhillips on 20 Dec 2009 at 1:43 pm #
Patroon, I don’t think anyone in the government with any knowledge of the situation thinks bin Laden is still alive so the chasing down bin Laden excuse doesn’t hold water. I agree that Justine is probably giving Chaffetz too much credit, but I think there is some rhetorical benefit to playing up the fact that some interventionists are coming our way even if there are some problems with their current position. They aren’t going to become Paul style non-interventionist overnight so there has to be some middle ground way station on their journey our way.
Patroon on 22 Dec 2009 at 8:31 am #
What evidence does anyone have that he’s dead?
Matt Weber on 22 Dec 2009 at 11:16 pm #
Larison is right that the hawkishness on Iran really hurts Chaffetz’s case for being anti-war. Baby steps to be sure, but who can deny that leaving Afghanistan to start a war in Iran wouldn’t be hopping out of the frying pan and into the volcano? Larison is naturally cynical about the Republicans anyway, and this kind of thing just confirms his suspicions that it is all about partisan politics rather than any kind of newfound principles.
That said, Larison’s own position on Afghanistan is strange. I agree with Mr Phillips that Afghanistan isn’t going to be made into a stable country by some magical amount of US effort. The terrorist presence in the country is all but eliminated, but if we stop propping up Karzai’s government it will fall. It’s possible that terrorism may arise there again, but what is the alternative? I think we just have to accept that if we are going to fight terrorism in this manner, that it is going to be a constant game of whack-a-mole. Endless occupations aren’t going to work.
Siryn on 24 Dec 2009 at 11:44 am #
I don’t think Dan Larison “plays” anything. He is direct, even blunt, with his logic. What’s pretty clear is that Raimondo doesn’t really read Larison, he is just cherry picking stuff to attack with. Anyone who has read Larison for some measure of time knows that he supported the war in Afghanistan.
Patroon on 29 Dec 2009 at 3:18 am #
“I think there is some rhetorical benefit to playing up the fact that some interventionists are coming our way even if there are some problems with their current position. They aren’t going to become Paul style non-interventionist overnight so there has to be some middle ground way station on their journey our way.”
I agree with you completely Red and that’s why I wrote “The Jacksoinan Way of War.” Larison may very well think its maximist hubris but to me the best way to prevent the establishment of a permanent military establishment is to go all out ONLY in wartime, otherwise you have to justify the warfare state.
I also think fellows from the 1960s “where the personal is politicial” tend to take these disputes more seriously and tempermentally than you or I would. We’ve disagreed before but never to the extent Raimondo takes such disagreements unfortunately. I would never let a political disagreement end a friendship.