Edwards Let's Us Down ... Almost
For the past few weeks I have been looking at John Edwards' nascent campaign and liking what I see. Yesterday, he came perilously close to disappointing me. Responding to a question about Iran, Edwards gave the conventional tough guy answer of "all options are on the table." In other words, Edwards doesn't want anyone to think he is scared of putting boots on the ground in Iran and bullets in the heads of Iranians.
I am sure all of us can picture a scenario in which military intervention in needed in Iran. But once again, we have an American politician leaping to the military option in a rush to let everyone know he is not afraid to shed others' blood.
It might be nice if someone would reframe the issue and say that military action would be a last resort, and unilateral military action the absolute last resort.
It might be nice for some candidate to separate himself or herself from the herd by pointing out the terrible downside to the use of force, emphasize that violence has only bred violence and that long term solutions are not going to come from the barrel of a gun.
It might be nice if someone said, "I would use military force reluctantly and only in the face of an imminent verified threat to innocent human life. The sacrifice of lives would be the last, not the first, second, or third option I would examine. " Instead, Edwards tipped us all of that he may well be willing to continue our long history of military interference in the Middle East, much of it unjustified and much of it only to protect our "interests," not our lives.
On some level, you cannot blame him. The willingness to use military force is right up there with church going as one of the unwritten requirements for the Presidency and the more willing you are, the more we seem to like you. It like every candidate wants to show us how quick he is on the draw, not whether he (or she) thinks before pulling the trigger.
I am sure all of us can picture a scenario in which military intervention in needed in Iran. But once again, we have an American politician leaping to the military option in a rush to let everyone know he is not afraid to shed others' blood.
It might be nice if someone would reframe the issue and say that military action would be a last resort, and unilateral military action the absolute last resort.
It might be nice for some candidate to separate himself or herself from the herd by pointing out the terrible downside to the use of force, emphasize that violence has only bred violence and that long term solutions are not going to come from the barrel of a gun.
It might be nice if someone said, "I would use military force reluctantly and only in the face of an imminent verified threat to innocent human life. The sacrifice of lives would be the last, not the first, second, or third option I would examine. " Instead, Edwards tipped us all of that he may well be willing to continue our long history of military interference in the Middle East, much of it unjustified and much of it only to protect our "interests," not our lives.
On some level, you cannot blame him. The willingness to use military force is right up there with church going as one of the unwritten requirements for the Presidency and the more willing you are, the more we seem to like you. It like every candidate wants to show us how quick he is on the draw, not whether he (or she) thinks before pulling the trigger.
posted by Jack Reed at 1:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home