Posted under Interventionism
Daniel Larison isn’t impressed, but Daniel tends to be a pessimist about such matters. I am not kidding myself that the conservative movement is on the verge of embracing Ron Paul style non-intervention in toto, but what I am encouraged by is the trend line. The trend is toward skepticism of reflexive interventionism, even if it is sometimes incoherently expressed. Here is my reply to Daniel.
This is Daniel at his “glass half
I have actually been encouraged by the conservative response. The best way I can think of to describe the conservative reaction to Libya is all over the map. No it hasn’t been the universal condemnation that we would like, but that would be expecting too much. But neither has there been near universal approval as there was for Iraq.
There has been wide spread skepticism about the wisdom of intervening in this case. There has been criticism of allowing the UN to push us into this. There has been criticism of not going to Congress for authorization. Of course the usual suspects have been cheerleading for intervention and even complaining that Obama dithered too long and has ruled out ground troops, but these folks are increasing isolated and can now be challenged with impunity. Even National Review has published some critics.
Take a look at a mainstream conservative website/blog such as American Spectator. Both the posts and the comments have been all over the map on this. While some of the criticism appears to be inchoate criticism of Obama, and I highly doubt there would be as much opposition if McCain was in the White House, what is clear is that there is not a uniform “official” conservative position on this other than maybe “Obama is a screw up.”
This is progress. Compare this to 2003 and 2004, for example, when criticism of reflexive interventionism would get you labeled a traitor.