Late To The Genocide Debate

Late coming to this - see Instapundit here and also Ace here. Ace may be right on the merits, we didn't even fight the Civil War to end slavery, let alone a genocide - emanicipation became almost a byproduct of it. But he's wrong on application when it comes to Iraq.

Obama Says Preventing Genocide Not Enough To Justify US Presence In Iraq... And He's Right

I would strongly caution conservatives on how they argue against Obama and other anti-war partisans on this point. Obama is basically playing Br'er Rabbit here -- "Don't throw me in that briar-patch" -- and conservatives would do well to be careful when dealing with Br'er Rabbit.

First of all, he's absolutely right. Cold-heartedly and cynically right, but quite frankly, that's the sort of "right" I like in foreign policy.

America does not risk thousands of casualties "merely" to prevent genocide.

True. But since when does America expend thousands of lives, as we already have in Iraq, to bring it about? You can talk WW II Germany, Bosnia, and Russia, Darfur - none of those were of our making. While I agree that National Security is and always has been the leading argument for victory in Iraq, Colin Powell's You break it, you bought it admonishment should not simply be dismissed. Allowing a post-US genocide in Iraq would not be a sin of omission.

You can even argue that we aren't truly accountable for what happened in Vietnam when we left, as that onslaught was always in the offing. But, for better or worse, Saddam had Iraq under control before we invaded. We altered that countries history and I see no reason for shying away from reminding people we now have a humanitarian responsibility in Iraq that goes well beyond mere conscience. Any coming genocide in Iraq will be as much ours, as it will be theirs. We just won't have to do the bleeding and dying for it to end.

Comments

[Capitalist Infidel]

Since when have democrats cared about genocide? Rwanda, Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia. I'd say liberals get some sick kind of satisfaction from mass slaughter.

[Ralph]

"we didn't even fight the Civil War to end slavery, let alone a genocide - emanicipation became almost a byproduct of it."

With all due respect - and I do respect you - this is incorrect. Likely the byproduct of pc elementary school education or cultural indoctrination.

While the motives of the individual soldier during the Civil War are greatly varied, the nation was most certainly plunged into conflict because of the institution of slavery. Wars are started by the aggressor. Who started that war? SC and the newly minted Confederacy. Why? Lincoln's election. Why would that bother them? The Republicans reason for being was opposition to slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. After all the carnage there is absolutely no way imaginable a nothern victory could have led to anything but an abolition of slavery. Any sort of compromise on that would likely have led to another civil war with PA, NY, NJ, DE and the New England states on one side and the other northern states on the other. That's only if the more border states would have been inclined to compromise. That senario is iffy at best given the level of losses sustained by all the northern states. Emancipation was going to follow if for no higher motivethan payback.

[Dan Riehl]

Ralph, I am not saying slavery wasn't a root cause of the division, but as you yourself acknowledge, the South initiated the war. The North, as anti-slavery as it was, still sought an accomodation short of war.

[Phoenix]

Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but he wouldn't have allowed a war over it. The last time someone griped me about my belief that Lincoln was one of our best presidents, I asked a friend of mine to give me the lowdown. Here it is:

"
I know a little about history and the only other time this nation was as divided over an issue was prior to the Civil War. And contrary to popular belief, that war had little to do with slavery itself. It was all about cheap labor and the advantages the South had over the North in production because of cheap labor. The booming economy of the South was luring so many people that the urban North was in serious jeopardy of losing its historcal electoral majority. That was not good as far they were concerned, as the South had become a cash cow for revenue and was set to cast all those taxes off. Plus, the Mexican War was still very fresh in the Southern psyche and a good many entertained the notion of going into Mexico and gaining the ocean seaport of Puerto Penasco (south of Tuscon) and a boatload of copper mines in that area. (the demand for copper was overwhelming the production due to the telegraph. It is instructive to note that the President of the Confederacy was a decorated veteran of the Mexican War - Jefferson Davis, and he became very familiar with the region. And remember the Gadsen Puchase? Mexico offered to sell us a strip of Mexico along our border. For the paltry price of $20 million we would have had Puerto Penasco, a real sea port and a bunch of copper country. For $15 million, we could have everything we have now and for $10 million we would've not gotten San Diego. This may seem obscure now, but Jefferson had purchased the Louisianna Purchase easily and that benefitted the North - few slave states were allowed therein. Remember, there was copper and cotton in the Southwest, but the evil North refused to cough up the extra $5 million to buy a seaport MUCH CLOSER to the heart of the South. They were pissed. This all happened in 1857, so it was very fresh in the minds of the captains of industry in the South.
The issue of illegal immigration is just as much an economic and political power struggle as an actual invasion. Conservatives see their power base being eroded and economic power shifting to urban areas.
In the Civil War, Northerners saw their political power base being eroded and their economic power shifting to rural areas.
In both cases, the nation was almost evenly split and seemingly without any hope of compromise.
When South Carolina seceded. It did so all by itself. And the Civil War began.
Washington had better start listening to the people on this issue of border security/control.
Sheriff Joe Arpiao might just be the President of the Second Confederacy.

(Steel Turman)