Monday, July 26, 2010

The (very welcome) death of 'liberal interventionism'


Olching writes:

Liberal interventionism must be viewed in the same light as any other aggressive, traumatic foreign policy of, say, the last 200 years. This must include rejecting the story of 'good' interventions in Yugoslavia and/or Afghanistan - it has always been part of the same brutal agenda.

Anyone doubt that now?

3 comments:

Steve Hayes said...

What's "liberal" about it?

olching said...

What's "liberal" about it?

Because they intervene liberally.

Gregor said...

'This must include rejecting the story of 'good' interventions in Yugoslavia and/or Afghanistan'

Absolutely. It's worth noting that all the main political parties were sympathetic towards giving future military support to Georgia, as were most of the pundits who had previously rendered themselves unfit for their work by supporting previous 'liberal interventions'.

It's for this reason that the idea of trying Tony Blair over the 'dodgy dosier' made me feel a bit ambivalent, which is to say I was entirely sympathetic to trying him, but I also thought that personifying the failure of our society in one man (when a vast majority of our journalists and politicans are sympathetic to his dangerous ideals) would be to underestimate how integral 'liberal intervention' is to the political mainstream.