« All The Beating Drums, The Celebration Guns | Main | Thanks, Dad »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Weary" is a condition, not a reason either to act or not to act.

One should look at events, and decide if they present a compelling argument for action.

No rational person could have honestly reached the conclusion in 2003 that Iraq represented an immediate threat to the US, no matter the discussion of WMDs. And while military action against al Quaeda and the Taliban government that gave them safe harbor made sense, as soon as the Taliban fell and al Quaeda relocated to Pakistan, there was simply no compelling argument for a continued US military presence in theater.

But the argument for Libya was different. The world had stood by and watched Rwanda and Somalia. Before that, they made promises they chose not to keep in Srebrenica and found themselves complicit in mass murder. Now, here was a dictator challenged by a democratic rebellion, which he promised to put down while showing 'no mercy'. He had the air, the armor, the artillery and heavy weapons to do it, and his forces were closing inexorably on the rebel population centers in the East.

The world had two options - to stand down once again, or to act. It may end badly, and it may turn out to be yet another disastrous decision. But I simply cannot say I would prefer to live in a world that didn't have the political courage and will to at least TRY to prevent another massacre of innocents...


just john

The article uses the word "wary," not "weary."

And concerning wars of choice, I'm both.


Aaaaaand I'm increasingly dyslexic in my old age. But I think the point stands!

Frank Lynch

It's not dyslexia, Spencer. The article's html "title code" says "weary." You might have seen the title code through an RSS feed or at the top of your browser.

The comments to this entry are closed.