Why I Left Liberalism #20 - Selective Outrage: Iraq vs. Darfur and Myanmar

The Jewish Reform Movement has led a campaign for a couple years to raise awareness of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Teens are proudly sporting their T-shirts or sweatshirts that read “Save Darfur.” And two weeks ago, either the youth group or social action committee (I’m not sure which; maybe both) erected a tent on the temple lawn decorated with peace signs and rainbows and hearts and slogans like “Save Darfur,” “Peace and Love,” “Be Strong,” “We’re With You Guys.” Aw, how nice. I’m sure the Janjaweed militia are considering your pledges as we speak, right before continuing to hack away at their victims.

Last year I even joined a local Reform synagogue and other nearby houses of worship at a local rally to raise awareness of the crisis in Darfur. The rabbi was even interviewed on site for local cable. Standing to the side, I heard him tell the interviewer something to the effect of: I hope President Bush does the right thing and takes some action to address the crisis in Darfur.

I wonder if this rabbi, who I know initially did, but no longer, supports military action in Iraq, advocates military action in Darfur.

But it did make me contemplate this: The Left, with which the Reform movement aligns, has opposed the Iraq War based on claims that (1) Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S., (2) We have no right to invade a sovereign nation, inter alia. But they want us to take action in Darfur even though (1) Sudan is no immediate threat to the U.S. and (2) We have no right to invade a sovereign nation!

Now we face a humanitarian crisis resulting from the powerful cyclone in Myanmar/Burma. The junta that runs that prison nation has been refusing Western aid on ideological grounds. How does the left respond to this? Trudy Rubin, Pulitzer Prize writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, considers forceful intervention [Highlights mine]:

So should, or can, U.N. member states force the junta to accept the world’s outstretched hand?

Ironically, U.N. members adopted a concept back in fall 2005 that would seem to answer that question. At the urging of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the General Assembly endorsed the following principle: The international community has a “responsibility to protect” civilians when their governments can’t or won’t stop genocide or crimes against humanity — even if this means violating a country’s national sovereignty.

This concept, known variously as “humanitarian intervention” or by the abbreviation “R2P,” has gone nowhere. It has not proved useful in dealing with the quasi-genocide in Darfur. Authoritarian regimes view R2P as a potential cover for Western military efforts at regime change.

But if it ever had any relevance, the concept ought to apply to the horrific situation in Myanmar. The issue at hand is not changing the country’s regime (which has kept Nobel-prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for 16 years after voiding 1990 elections). The issue is saving lives; the junta’s stonewalling could create a humanitarian catastrophe.

But wait! This is the same Trudy Rubin who in 2004 published the book Willful Blindness: The Bush Administration in Iraq. Here is how her own website describes the book:

One of American’s top foreign affairs columnists describes how the Bush administration blundered into Iraq and the prospects for getting out.

In WILLFUL BLINDNESS, Trudy Rubin tells the story of how the administration misconceived the Iraq war and mishandled the postwar.

So, let me see if I get this straight: Intervention in Darfur = good. Intervention in Myanmar/Burma = good. Intervention in Iraq = bad.

Inconsistency? Political expediency? Or just old-fashioned garden-variety lib logic? Who knows ...

Don Surber, who writes for the Charleston, WV, Daily Mail, also detects a bit of leftist inconsistency:

Liberals want us to invade Myanmar, replace its brutal regime and convert them to democracy.

First it was Bosnia. We bombed the heck out of it so NATO could take over and install a democracy. 10 years later, NATO still has troops there, although they are not getting shot at.

Liberals want us to “do something” about the Sudan. Military action? Perhaps.

Now in the wake of a cyclone, liberals want us to take over Myanmar.

Saddam Hussein diverted $22 billion in Oil for Food relief to his nation’s people to his enterprises and the paid off Jacques Chirac and the United Nations.

[Citing Rubin’s own words - ETR] “If that doesn’t constitute a crime against humanity, what does?”

Surber concludes:

Tell you what, when liberals admit that it was morally correct to invade Iraq, take over the government and hang that (expletive) Hussein, then I’ll take them serious about Myanmar.

My thoughts exactly.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the war in Iraq is without problems, miscalculations, and things unforeseen. But ya know what? It’s a WAR. Liberals expected perfection and then when it didn’t happen, they accuse the Bush administration of misleading, bungling, and mismanaging it.

So, what’s gonna happen, Trudy Rubin, when the West intervenes in Myanmar/Burma, and there are problems, miscalculations, and things unforeseen?

What’s gonna happens when the U.S. or U.N. misleads, bungles, or mismanages the operation?

What’s gonna happen when some in the “world community” accuse the West of arrogance, imperialism, and hubris for invading a sovereign country that wasn’t an immediate threat?

You’re gonna ignore it, dismiss it, excuse it, and rationalize it, aren’t you?