Maybe This Isn't So Bad

David Clark is complaining in the Guardian that the war in Iraq has damaged the argument for humanitarian war.

So why would this be a good thing?

Humanitarian wars aren't bad in and of themselves. There is a point and time when it really does become necessary to help our fellow man to throw off a murderous, uncaring tyrant.

But that justification is in danger of being abused. The argument could be used as justification for military intervention in just about any third world country: people are suffering and the dictator isn't doing enough to help them.

Now the justification for Kosovo was decent. For Iraq it was ok. Liberia - I still don't feel real comfortable with Liberia. What about Columbia? Or Cuba? Or Venezuela? Where does the line get drawn?

It has been the left, as defined by Mr. Clark, that has been the traditional primary proponents of the "humanitarian war." But if they feel as though they've lost the moral high ground, perhaps there won't be the push to send the Marines into every African civil war.

If the left is split on the humanitarian justification it becomes possible to have a debate on the facts. Too often we have one side arguing facts while the other side is arguing the need to save humanity from any and every evil.

I don't have a problem with the humanitarian justification, but I think that we need to have a real debate about it first.

It would be a nice irony if one of the few real humanitarian wars splits the left's stranglehold on the humanitarian justification.