Unreconstructed Liberal Hawks

There are lots of them out there. People who identify as liberals but support wars for humanitarian reasons. The Iraq war drew their support in legions because Saddam Hussein was a bad man and he gassed the kurds, don't you know. Plus democracy might bloom throughout the middle east, and all the authoritarian human rights-violators would be forced from power by publics marveling at the flourishing Iraqi democracy and demanding it for themselves. Anyone who opposed the war was insensitive and a hypocrite and probably a rascist.

The rest is history. I confess I kinda bought this line. Especially once the war began, when it seemed like we had an obligation to be good managers of the society we had turned upside down. But what have the last 5 years accomplished? Has any progress been made that wouldn't have been made had we left the country promptly after we found that there weren't any weapons? Has anyone seriously examined this question? I'd genuinely like to know.

Anyway, guys like George Packer still cling to the fantasy of Good Wars. This Matt Yglesias post gets close to this point. Packer still demonizes people who opposed the war. There's little firm ground to stand on for people who don't believe much in humanitarian war, people who think there's a very high bar to meet if you're going to make the choice to risk young people's lives for an elusive goal. Plus, it all would have gone well if Bush and co. messed it up so bad.

The unreconstructed hawks haven't changed their worldviews. They may be a little more cautious with who they entrust with their tasks, but they still believe in the righteousness of their task and that it's achievable. You have to be a liberal ideologue or an asshole to disagree with them. And they still occupy high offices in the media and political establishment.