AnalPhilosopher

Should the United States withdraw its military personnel from Iraq? Reasonable people can and do differ in their answers to this question. Nor is there a necessary connection between one's view of the morality of going to war and one's view of whether the United States should withdraw. I supported the war. It was the right thing to do, all things considered. But I've long advocated that we should withdraw from Iraq and let the Iraqi people govern themselves (if they can). Someone else may have opposed the war but now believe that the United States should stay and "finish the job."

Paul Krugman* never addressed the merits of the war. To him, it was wrong simply because President Bush—a man he loathes—waged it. His focus was (and remains) President Bush's motivation rather than the justification for the war. (The war could have been justified even if badly motivated and could have been unjustified even if well motivated. See here.) And now that the question has shifted to withdrawal, Krugman still evades the merits. All he wants to do is bash the president. See here. Krugman implies that the two issues are linked: that if one opposed the war, one must support immediate withdrawal of troops; and that if one supported the war, one must oppose withdrawal. He's right that we should be having a national conversation about what to do; but he's wrong in thinking that this is connected to whether the war was just. The issues are separable. He's also wrong, and laughably so, that the administration is preventing debate. How could the administration prevent debate? Is poor Paul intimidated? What does he fear? A tax audit?

I still find it amazing that liberals such as Krugman oppose humanitarian intervention. Liberals used to believe in human rights. The United Nations wasn't preventing Saddam Hussein from violating the rights of his people. He had nothing to fear from the United Nations, which we now know was in his pocket. The United States was in a position to enforce United Nations resolutions and did. It used to be conservatives who opposed humanitarian intervention. Now, ironically, many of them support it. It's a topsy-turvy world.

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Addendum: I keep hearing it said, by Krugman and others, that President Bush "wanted" to go to war from the moment he was elected, or after the attacks of 9-11. What ice does this cut? Wouldn't it be odd if he had no position on whether Saddam Hussein should be removed from power? Hussein had been brutalizing his people for decades and posed a threat to his neighbors—if not the United States. Let's not forget that the man invaded Kuwait and tried to kill one of our presidents! Nor is wanting to remove Hussein from power incompatible with believing that war is a last resort. President Bush might have believed that Hussein could be removed with United Nations cooperation. That war was justified didn't mean it was inevitable.

Addendum 2: It is scandalous to suggest, as Krugman does, that President Bush waged war in order to burnish his image or satisfy his blood lust. This is to ascribe the very worst motivation to the president. Can anyone seriously doubt that Krugman hates President Bush, or that this distorts his thinking? The man is hateful, paranoid, and delusional. He needs professional help.

Addendum 3: Don Luskin has gathered some of the commentary on Krugman's column. See here. I understand that there are people who idolize Paul Krugman. Unbelievable. Perhaps he is writing for them, for his manipulative rhetoric has no chance of persuading anyone who doesn't hate President Bush.